The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) has finalized its rule under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), addressing prior express consent requirements for sellers to send advertisements and telemarketing notices using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) or artificial/prerecorded voice. Notably, the one-to-one requirement has been removed.
After a debt collector filed suit to collect an expired debt, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the debt collector could not later compel arbitration of the debtor’s class action because arbitration had been waived.
An initiative designed to add significant regulatory obligations to the home improvement and solar financing industries is progressing through the California legislature. Senate Bill 784 (SB 784) passed the California Senate last month and the California Assembly is quickly moving a slightly amended version of the bill through committees in July. If enacted, SB 784 would take effect on January 1, 2026.
In a recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Texas Debt Collection Act (TDCA) case, finding three texts and three phone messages over eight weeks was not harassing and because the messages were clearly for another person, an unsophisticated consumer could not have thought defendants were attempting to collect a debt from the plaintiff.
Yesterday, Federal Communications Commissioner Olivia Trusty announced the appointment of several members to her team stating, “I am pleased to announce the talented individuals who will be joining my team. Each brings a wealth of experience, deep commitment to public service, and a shared passion for advancing the Commission’s mission. I look forward to working alongside them as we serve the American people.”
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, ruled that the Medicaid Act’s any-qualified-provider provision does not confer individual rights enforceable under 42 U.S.C. §1983. This decision reverses the Fourth Circuit’s judgment, which affirmed the right of Medicaid beneficiaries to sue state officials for excluding Planned Parenthood from South Carolina’s Medicaid program.
Background
This article was republished in insideARM on June 17, 2025.
On May 22, Illinois House Bill 3352 passed the Illinois legislature and now awaits Governor JB Pritzker’s signature. This bill amends the Illinois Collection Agency Act to provide an individual a way to avoid liability for a coerced debt. HB 3352 defines coerced debt as a debt incurred due to fraud, duress, intimidation, threat, force, coercion, undue influence, or non-consensual use of the debtor’s personal identifying information as a result of domestic abuse, sexual assault, exploitation, or human trafficking.
Last year, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleging Global Circulation, Inc. (GCI) and its owner, Kenneth Redon III, violated the FTC Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and its associated Regulation F, § 521 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and the FTC’s Trade Regulation Rule on Impersonation of Government and Businesses. On May 1, the FTC announced the parties entered into a stipulated permanent injunction and money order, prohibiting GCI and Redon from any further debt collection activities.
In a recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, the court granted a motion to dismiss in favor of a debt collection law firm and one of its attorneys who were not licensed as debt collectors in Indiana. The court found that a failure to be licensed did not provide for a private right of action under state law and did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
This article was republished on insideARM on March 18, 2025.
In a recent decision, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted summary judgment in favor of a debt collector who responded to a debtor’s letter disputing and refusing to pay a debt by providing validation of the debt. The court found that the debt collector’s actions did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).